Medical pot and enforcing laws
Re “Some marijuana regulation, finally” (Editorials, Sept. 20): We are supposed to be a nation of laws and not men – where the rules we live by apply to everyone equally. But how can our elected representatives compromise on legislation when there is no guarantee whether the legislation will be enforced?
A classic example is immigration law and the legalization of marijuana. Arizona tried to enforce border security on its own, but the court ruled that it could not because border security was a federal responsibility and federal law prevails over state law.
On the other hand, we have states legalizing recreational marijuana in defiance of federal law, with little or no action taken. This selective enforcement creates a danger to our government and our way of life far larger than these two issues.
Sign Up and Save
Get six months of free digital access to The Sacramento Bee
How can we expect our representatives to compromise on important issues if they can’t have confidence that what they agree to will actually get done?
George Alger, Placerville
Drinking too many brewskis?
The Bee’s editorial board has proven it’s streetwise, using the slang term “weed” in the editorial about cannabis regulation. Maybe the next time beer is mentioned in an editorial, the board can substitute the word “brewski.”
The editorial mentions there is a lack of hard science on cannabis. I think the board has been drinking too many brewskis and not doing its research. There is definitely scientific evidence demonstrating the efficacy of cannabis at relieving symptoms from a number of maladies including neuropathic pain. However, the federal government has been the biggest obstacle in furthering the science on cannabis. Research is happening around the globe, and it is accelerating.
It’s important to get the facts straight since there is plenty of ignorance to go around.
Mark Collen, Sacramento
Minimum wage should be livable
Re “Proposed wage increase too much” (Letters, Sept. 20): Let’s do a little math here. Assume a minimum-wage worker gets paid for working 30 hours a week, no overtime. For $12.50 an hour, that works out to $1,625 per month before deductions. Is a $1,121 a month apartment really affordable for most people making minimum wage?
Comparing a $12.50 minimum wage to the cost of a 2-bedroom apartment is silly, and comparing Sacramento’s rents to Los Angeles’ and other cities’ is even sillier. The minimum wage should be figured based on how many hours people actually work as well as how much it costs to live, not based on a bunch of numbers that don’t make sense.
Despite the lies pushed by some parties, President Franklin Roosevelt actually intended the minimum wage to be a living wage (research it if you don’t believe me), and if it had kept up with inflation it would be more than $20 an hour today.
Killing Big Oil not the solution
Re “How long will this blue state let oil remain king?” (Editorials, Sept. 13): I was a bit surprised and frankly disappointed with the tone of The Bee’s editorial.
To reduce our oil by 50 percent would harm our economy. The developed alternatives to date do not yet have the technology to take the place of oil. Poor folks cannot afford expensive electric or hybrid cars. Solar is even more expensive and so are other alternative energies.
The solution is to encourage new technology that will be more efficient and less polluting than oil. Most oil companies are concerned about climate change and are actively researching improved alternative energy sources.
Don’t kill an industry before better solutions are financially available. I firmly believe that one day someone will develop better solutions for our energy than oil. But to dictate draconian measures before better solutions are invented would be an economic nightmare for our great state, especially if we were the only one doing it.
Harry L. Hall,
El Dorado Hills
Trump, Fiorina share similar traits
Re “Fiorina’s performance” (Forum, Drawing Board, Sept. 20): Carly Fiorina appeared to be taking the high road regarding Donald Trump’s remarks about her face, saying, “I think women all over the country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.”
Perhaps the women of America should also be reminded that Fiorina made similar remarks about Barbara Boxer’s appearance during the last U.S. Senate race in 2010. Her hair is “so yesterday,” Fiorina said. She and Trump have both shown themselves to be of shallow character and therefore unfit for consideration for public office, particularly the presidency.
Doris Concklin, Carmichael
Give us Clinton’s, Dems’ code names
Re “You can’t debate without a code name” (Forum, Jack Ohman, Sept. 20): I am sure that The Sacramento Bee, being so fair and unbiased, will certainly have an outstanding article by Jack Ohman giving code names to the Democrats in their upcoming debate. I wonder what Hillary’s code name will be?
Suzan Hunt, Lincoln
Journalistic jackpot for readers
Re Forum, Sept. 20: Wow, talk about stand up and salute! This Sunday morning was a journalism jackpot with articles from two favorites, Jack Ohman and David “Mas” Masumoto, both on the same page. The Bee and its readers are so fortunate to have those writers’ talents to enjoy – plus the very lively travel pieces by Sam McManis are much appreciated.
EXTRA LETTERS ONLINE
Find them at:
HOW TO SUBMIT
Online form (preferred):
Other: Letters, P.O. Box 15779,
Sacramento, CA 95852
150-word limit. Include name, address and phone number. Letters may be edited for clarity, brevity and content.